Wedge politics: a new name for an old game

Page Tools

Despite the hype, this federal election campaign is running along predictable lines.

Activists believe. Journalists report. But, increasingly, mainstream politicians are said to "wedge". The use of the term wedge is relatively new in Australian politics. Half a century ago the policy differences between the Coalition and Labor were greater than is currently the case. Yet it was never said that Robert Menzies had attempted to wedge Labor by proposing to outlaw the Communist Party. Or that Ben Chifley had tried to wedge the Coalition by advocating the nationalisation of the private trading banks. It was just assumed that politicians were involved in traditional politics. That's all.

This attitude prevailed until relatively recently. Now, however, what was once regarded as normal political behaviour takes on a somewhat sinister form by virtue of the wedging concept. More seriously, the term wedge has become almost a cliche in the lead-up to the next federal election - a word usage which is much favoured by journalists and commentators.

In March, The Australian's Paul Kelly declared that "Mark Latham has made a calculated move to try and wedge John Howard on Iraq". Then in May he maintained that the Coalition "aims to wedge Mark Latham on tax policy". In May The Age's Michelle Grattan expressed the view that John Howard "has certainly been trying to wedge Mark Latham" over Iraq. Around the same time she saw the Coalition's move to ban same-sex marriages as a move which would have reflected Howard's "conservative view and would have appealed as a 'wedge' to use against Labor".

AdvertisementAdvertisement

During an appearance in June on the ABC TV Insiders program, Glenn Milne took a somewhat different attitude. He reported that Howard's position had gone close to being counter-productive since it had encouraged the Liberal MP Trish Worth to consider voting against the legislation. Proclaimed Milne: "I can tell you, John Howard came very close to wedging himself on that issue." Quite remarkable, really.

Meanwhile in The Australian Financial Review in January, Laura Tingle wrote that Latham's political tactics had succeeded in that "Howard, for the first time in eight years, has not been able to 'wedge' a Labor leader using his brand of social conservatism". Yet in the same paper in March, Lenore Taylor reported that Howard had managed to wedge Latham "into an uncomfortable corner on his favourite subject the plight of boys".

On ABC Radio's PM in February, presenter Mark Colvin wondered aloud about whether drug use was going to be "the next political wedge". Soon after, on the ABC's The 7.30 Report, Michael Brissenden asserted that "for the Government, the free trade agreement with the United States has become a welcome policy wedge". In May, on ABC TV's Lateline, Greg Jennett noted that Labor was supporting the Coalition on gay marriages and reported that, consequently, "there is no political wedge to be found".

The usage of the word wedge implies tricks of Machiavellian proportions. In fact, what is going on in the pre-election debate is mainstream, routine politics.

Howard is a combination of economic reformer, social conservative and believer in Australia's links with what Menzies termed our great and powerful friends - the US and Britain. In view of this, it comes as no surprise that he is tough on drugs, opposes gay marriage and supports the George Bush and Tony Blair policy in Iraq. Nor is it in any sense unusual to find the Prime Minister proclaiming the benefits of the proposed Australia-US free trade agreement.

It's much the same with the Opposition Leader - albeit from a different perspective. Latham is a social democrat who belongs to that tradition in the Labor Party which has an isolationist outlook - in that it regards the defence of Australia as beginning, and ending, at the Australian shoreline. In view of this, it is not surprising that, if elected, he intends to withdraw Australian forces from Iraq by Christmas, while attempting to keep the formal Australian-American alliance intact.

Likewise, in a society where social conservatism still has its attractions, it is clever politics for Latham to try to combat Howard's attitudes on the family, marriage and drugs by advancing his own agenda with respect to children's reading and related issues. This is not the action of a wedger or a counter-wedger. Rather, it is a manifestation of mainstream politics.

In fact there is nothing unexpected in the current pre-campaign political contest. The Newspoll conducted on June 18-20 explains why. According to Newspoll, Australian voters rate the top six issues in the following order - health, education, national security, leadership, family issues and the environment.

Labor leads the Coalition on health, education, family issues and environment. But the Coalition leads Labor on national security by the wide margin of 50 per cent to 26 per cent (with the remainder uncommitted). The Coalition holds an almost identical lead on interest rates - meaning, essentially, the broad economy. Also Howard is ahead of Latham on who would make the better prime minister, by 48 per cent to 36 per cent.

It is only to be expected that Howard will run hard on national security as an aspect of his leadership capacity. It just so happens that the Prime Minister believes what he is saying on this and other issues. Similarly, it is understandable that Latham will focus on health and education as part of a family-friendly focus. It also happens to be the case that the Opposition Leader is sincere in his advocacy.

In fact, the range of differences between the Coalition and Labor are not great. A Latham government would put some strains on the Australia-US relationship but would not abandon the alliance - this would only occur if Labor banned the US Navy from Australian ports or wound back the intelligence-gathering joint facilities.

Also, Labor would re-regulate the labour market - to some extent at least. There would be some other policy changes consequent upon a change of government. But foreign policy and industrial relations define the essential differences between the Coalition and Labor. To many electors, this is enough.

It stands to reason that Howard and Latham want to exaggerate their policy disagreements across a range of issues. Yet their different approaches to certain key issues are real enough. Take Iraq, for example. Howard or Latham may be sincerely wrong - but both are sincere.

The term wedge is new. Contemporary politics, however, is just politics.